Trailer Deck Boards

I put that on my daughters deck couple years ago it's holding up good but like you said , I don't know if it would hold up in a trailer

 

Exactly! I have wondered this many times, but you are the first person I have EVER heard mention this!
Wait...you are talking about the rubber that "wears" off the tires, right?

 

The Greenes only bitch about what is convenient. You should hear them squeal when something gets to close to home. they should all be walking bare foot- due to all the synthetics in foot wear ( won't even get into the rest of a dress code for them forked tongued persons)

 

Used motor oil here, on all the wooden decked hay wagons at the end of the season. By spring they aren't slippery. If your wife is overly concerned lay a tarp down and collect it. Or have her lay under it and wipe all the drips onto the bottom of the boards.

 

1/2 build linseed oil and 1/2 mineral spirits. Re-treet every few years.

 

I read a piece a few years ago about the Prius and how much fuel it wastes....the ore for the batteries is mined by heavy equipment in Canada, and transported by more heavy equipment to the coast. It's loaded onto a tanker and sent to Japan, where they make the batteries and cars, and install into the cars. Then they load up the Prius onto another tanker for another trip across the Pacific to the U.S. Once received at the port, they get loaded onto more heavy equipment trains and trucks for delivery to dealers. Ultimately, in order to "save fuel" and feel good about themselves, the well meaning buyers have actually burned more fuel than a full size truck that was built here can burn in a few years-

 

Read that on the internet didja?

 

I like the way you think!!

 

Amen!!

 

This sounds interesting!

 

Yes mineral spirits, much safer on the ground than used oil.......

 

It's definitely buyer beware on the battery hybrids or full battery vehicles from a price standpoint, because if your battery is coming up for replacement you're on the hook for a several thousand dollar part that you weren't expecting..

 

Science
DAVE ROOS

NEXT PAGE


The bestselling Toyota Prius has garnered more than its share of controversy since its debut a decade ago.
JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES

The hybrid car has been touted as the green savior of the automobile industry. A decade after the Toyota Prius debuted worldwide, issues like climate change and energy security have helped push the popular hybrid's sales numbers past the two million mark -- nearly half of them sold in North America [source:Autoblog].

Americans don't buy the Prius for its style or speed. They buy it to save money on gas and to shrink their carbon footprint. In most American cities, the personal automobile is the largest overall polluter, spewing millions of pounds of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and sulfur oxide into the atmosphere and into our lungs [source: EPA]. Eco-conscious consumers see the Prius and other hybrids as an investment in the environment and in our collective future.

But are hybrids really as green as they seem? How much is marketing hype and how much is scientific fact? Because hybrids have a second electric motor, they burn less fuel than conventional cars and emit lower levels of greenhouse gases during operation. That's great, but what about the hybrid manufacturing process? In 2007, a report commissioned by an auto industry trade group insisted that when you factor in the waste generated during production, the notoriously gas-guzzling Hummer is actually greener than the Prius [source: Slashdot]. While this report was largely discredited by environmental groups, it did raise an important question: does the pollution created during hybrid production offset the benefits of "green" driving?

The answer might surprise you. According to an in-depth study by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, hybrid cars do, in fact, require more energy to produce than conventional cars, emitting more greenhouse gases and burning more fossil fuels during the manufacturing process. The production of hybrid batteries, in particular, requires much more energy than producing a standard car battery and results in higher emission levels of gases like sulfur oxide

 

Not the specific articles I remember reading, but some of the info sounds about right-
PRIUS OUTDOES HUMMER IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
March 14, 2007

The Toyota Prius, the flagship car for the environmentally conscious, is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America, and takes more combined energy to produce than a Hummer, says the Recorder.

Consider:

• The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers.
• Dubbed the Superstack, the factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
• Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin.
• After leaving the plant, the nickel travels to Europe, China, Japan and United States, a hardly environmentally sound round the world trip for a single battery.

But that isn't even the worst part, says the Record. According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius (consisting of electrical, fuel, transportation, materials and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime), is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer:

• The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -- the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
• The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
• That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it.

Source: Chris Demorro, "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage," The Recorder, March 7, 2007.

 

So now to completely derail this thread, and lets hope we can keep it non political.

The very next paragraph (below) of the article in your first post and actually most of the rest of the article contradicts directly the information of your second post, so who do you believe?

But do the environmental impacts of hybrid vehicle production outweigh the long-term benefits of driving a cleaner running automobile? That answer is a resounding "no." If you drive both a conventional and hybrid car for 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers), the conventional vehicle requires far more energy to operate and emits far more greenhouse gases over its lifetime, significantly canceling out any imbalance during the production stage [source: Burnham et al].

I tend to lean toward the greenie end of the spectrum but not a screamin greenie, more of a logical economic greenie. Logic tells me that fossil fuel is a limited resource. When I listen to what the science (logic) of the environmental research is telling us and am able to sift through all of the chaff (not easy to do) vis a vis the political spin of the actual science data, which BTW both the greenie and anti-greenie sides are guilty of, all indications are that burning of fossil fuel is not good for the environment. Couple these two together with the ability, in some instances, to actually save money by being green and it ends up being a good thing in my opinion.